Temporary-status casual labourers completing qualifying service are entitled to family pension despite non-regularisation.

The applicant, widow of late R. Ravi, sought family pension and other retiral benefits payable in respect of her deceased husband, who joined the Department of Posts as a Mazdoor on 14.09.1983 and was conferred Temporary Status with effect from 01.01.2001 under the Department of Posts’ Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme, 1991.

He continued as a Temporary Status Casual Labourer until his death on 12.10.2012, without being formally regularised as Group ‘D’/MTS.

The applicant contended that, after completion of three years in Temporary Status, her husband became entitled to benefits applicable to temporary Group ‘D’ employees, including pensionary benefits.

Her representations dated 15.02.2019 and 01.11.2021 were rejected by the fifth respondent on 29.03.2019 and 06.09.2023, principally on the ground that her husband had not been regularised and had not rendered ten years of qualifying service in a regular cadre.

The applicant thereafter filed the present Original Application challenging the rejection orders and claiming family pension, other retiral benefits and arrears under the Old Pension Scheme.

Whether a Temporary Status Casual Labourer who completed three years of continuous service under Temporary Status was entitled to pensionary and retiral benefits, including family pension, despite not having been formally regularised as Group ‘D’/MTS before his death.

Whether the respondents’ orders dated 29.03.2019 and 06.09.2023, rejecting the applicant’s claim solely because her husband had not been regularised, were legally sustainable.

Whether the applicant was entitled to arrears of family pension and other benefits for the entire period claimed or only for the period of three years and two months preceding the filing of the Original Application.

The Tribunal applied the Department of Posts’ Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme, 1991, formulated pursuant to Jagrit Mazdoor Union (Regd.) v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., and the Department’s circular dated 30.11.1992, under which Temporary Status Casual Labourers completing three years of continuous service were to be treated at par with temporary Group ‘D’ employees and granted, inter alia, counting of service for pension and terminal benefits.

It relied on Rule 10(1-B) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, read with the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, including the minimum ten-year qualifying-service requirement referred to by the respondents.

The principal precedent was Bhikhani Devi v. Union of India, in which the Supreme Court held that a Temporary Status Casual Labourer could be entitled to pensionary benefits even in the absence of regularisation, once the requisite qualifying service had been completed.

The Tribunal also relied on Union of India v. Yosotha, where the Madras High Court held that non-regularisation for want of vacancies could not defeat the widow’s claim to family pension and retiral benefits when the employee died while serving as a Temporary Status Casual Labourer.

Pension is a continuing cause of action, but arrears may be restricted in accordance with limitation principles.

The Tribunal found that the applicant’s husband had been granted Temporary Status and had continued in service for more than three years thereafter.

Under the 30.11.1992 circular, completion of three years in Temporary Status aligned his service benefits with those of temporary Group ‘D’ employees, including pensionary and terminal benefits.

The Tribunal rejected the respondents’ argument that formal regularisation was an indispensable precondition, holding that the Supreme Court’s decision in Bhikhani Devi established entitlement to pensionary benefits even where regularisation had not occurred.

The fact that the employee died during service, rather than superannuating, did not justify a different result; the reasoning in Yosotha directly supported the grant of family pension where non-regularisation resulted from the Department’s failure or lack of vacancies and the employee died while holding Temporary Status.

Accordingly, the respondents’ reliance solely on the absence of regularisation was inconsistent with the governing scheme, circular and binding precedents.

However, applying the limitation principle concerning delayed monetary claims, the Tribunal restricted arrears to three years and two months preceding the filing of the Original Application.

It held that the applicant was entitled to the pensionary benefits accrued to her deceased husband, together with admissible family pension, notwithstanding his non-regularisation as Group ‘D’/MTS.

The respondents were directed to compute and grant the family pension and other retiral benefits within three months from receipt of the order.

Arrears were confined to the period of three years and two months preceding the filing of the Original Application.

In case of default, interest at 6% per annum from the date of accrual until disbursement was directed.